Free Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

..... . ...h.. ..-_-?_....._... _ _`
Case 3:03-cv—OO944—RNC Document 50 Filed O2/16/2005 Page1 0f4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ZUU5 FEB IL1 A H= 25
JAMES MCKINNON, : ij pup; HT
= PRIiS©E*E¥%¥ESE§r$,Eg"-" ¤
Plaintiff, : 3:O3—CV—94Z (RN ) (DEM) l
V. ; 3
YVONNE COLETTE, ET AL. ,1 : y
Defendants. \
RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS [
AND ORDER TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff James McKinnon is a. Connecticut inmate currently
incarcerated at Corrigan Correctional Institution. Defendants are 1
Connecticut Department of Correction employees who work at Cheshire ]
é
Correctional Institution, where plaintiff used to be incarcerated. \
Plaintiff has filed seven motions: two for preliminary injunction, E
I
four for summary judgment and one for a settlement conference.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, {
which plaintiff has yet to oppose. For the reasons set forth below, l
plaintiff’s motions are denied. In addition, plaintiff is ordered to
file a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
1
a
1The defendants named in the amended complaint are Yvonne
Colette, Pamela Shea, Ceryl Schwink, Pauline Husband, Nita
Donavan, Jim Taylor and Amonda Hannah. The complaint also
mentions Cheshire Corrections Officers Negron and James, neither j
of whom has been served. All defendants are sued in their
individual capacities only. I
l
l

¥Qiiihiirr asieeeeel ».... r“.r-. .._. _y l"`U

Case 3:03-cv—00944—RNC Document 50 Filed O2/16/2005 Page 2 of 4
I
I. RULINGS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
Motions for Injunctive Relief |Docs. 28 & 45I
Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief are directed against
persons who are not parties to this case -- he seeks an order g
enjoining staff at the University of Connecticut Health Care Center i
from releasing medical information without his written consent, and
an order enjoining officials at Corrigan from hindering his efforts 5
to provide copies of his motions to the defendants. The Court does
not have jurisdiction over these non—parties and thus cannot enjoin
their actions. See Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 658-59 (2d Cir. l
1990).2 Accordingly, his motions for injunctive relief must be
denied.
Motions for Summary Judgment |Docs. 34, 44, 47, 48l
Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are defective in that ?
they fail to comply with Local Civil Rule 56. This Rule requires I
that a motion for summary judgment be accompanied by “a document I
entitled ‘Local Rule 56(a)l Statement,’ which sets forth in _
separately numbered paragraphs a concise statement of each material E
fact as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue
to be tried." D. Conn. Loc. R. Civ. P. 56(a)l. In addition, l
"[e]ach statement of material fact in a Local Rule 56(a)l Statement g
. . . must be followed by a citation to (l) the affidavit of a
2 Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that the defendants I
over whom the Court does have jurisdiction have released or
threatened to release his medical information or denied him free
copies of legal documents. _
2 I

I

Case 3:03-cv—00944—RNC Document 50 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 3 of 4 '
witness competent to testify as to the facts at trial and/or (2)
evidence that would be admissible at trial." D. Conn. Loc. R. Civ.
P. 56(a)3. Because plaintiff has not filed a Local Rule 56(a)l
Statement with any of his motions for summary judgment, all of them
must be denied without prejudice.
Motion for Settlement Conference Doc. 36
Plaintiff states that he believes an early settlement conference
would be beneficial. Defendants’ counsel disagrees, presumably
because defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the amended i
complaint, which remains pending [Doc. 46]. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
request for a settlement conference is denied without prejudice to
renewal, if appropriate, after the Court rules on the motion to {
dismiss.
II. ORDER TO PLAINTIFF REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff has yet to file a memorandum in opposition to the I
motion to dismiss the amended complaint [Doc. 46]. His only response l
to the motion to dismiss has been a statement noting that he has
filed a motion for summary judgment and asking the Court to provide .
a copy of the motion to the defendants. Plaintiff’s motions for
summary judgment cannot serve as a substitute for a memorandum in
opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss because they do not
address the arguments raised in defendants' motion. Accordingly,
plaintiff is hereby ordered to file and serve a memorandum addressing
the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss on or before March 15,
2005. The Court hereby notifies the pgp sg plaintiff that “failure

Case 3:03-cv—00944—RNC Document 50 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 4 of 4
I
I
to submit a memorandum in opposition to [the] motion may be deemed
sufficient cause to grant the motion, except where the pleadings I
provide sufficient cause to deny the motion.” D. Conn. Loc. R. Civ. I
P. 7(a). I
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief {Docs.
28, 45] are denied; and his motions for summary judgment [Docs. 34, I
44, 47, 48] and a settlement conference [Doc. 36] are denied without I
prejudice. Plaintiff will file and serve a memorandum in opposition
to the pending motion to dismiss on or before March 15, 2005.
So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut this l3“ day of February,
2005. ,~~ I
United States District Judge
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I